Posted on 09/28/2005 3:30:36 PM PDT by Constitution Restoration Act
For decades, federal officials have ignored the pleas of American citizens to secure our borders against an immense, ongoing migration invasion that includes not only millions of “common variety” illegal aliens, but also drug traffickers, terrorists, and other violent criminals. Now, under the pretense of providing security, the Bush administration is adopting an outrageous policy that, in effect, does away with our borders with Mexico and Canada altogether. Regular readers of THE NEW AMERICAN know that this magazine has been warning that this direct assault on our nationhood was coming, that it is part and parcel of the NAFTA-CAFTA-FTAA process.
Mr. Dobbs, who has been virtually the lone voice in the Establishment media cartel opposing the bipartisan immigration and trade policies that are destroying our borders and national sovereignty, then noted:
Border security is arguably the critical issue in this country’s fight against radical Islamist terrorism. But our borders remain porous. So porous that three million illegal aliens entered this country last year, nearly all of them from Mexico. Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada.
Dobbs then switched to CNN correspondent Christine Romans in Washington, D.C., who reported: “On Capitol Hill, testimony calling for Americans to start thinking like citizens of North America and treat the U.S., Mexico and Canada like one big country.” Romans then showed brief excerpts of congressional testimony by Professor Robert Pastor, one of the six co-chairmen of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Task Force on North America. “The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada but at the borders of North America as a whole,” Pastor told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “What we hope to accomplish by 2010,” Pastor continued, “is a common external tariff which will mean that goods can move easily across the border. We want a common security perimeter around all of North America, so as to ease the travel of people within North America.”
Pastor’s testimony encapsulated the proposals put forward in the CFR Task Force report, entitled Building a North American Community. As CNN’s Christine Romans noted, the CFR program “envisions a common border around the U.S., Mexico and Canada in just five years, a border pass for residents of the three countries, and a freer flow of goods and people.” Romans went on to report: “Buried in 49 pages of recommendations from the task force, the brief mention, ‘We must maintain respect for each other’s sovereignty.’ But security experts say folding Mexico and Canada into the U.S. is a grave breach of that sovereignty.”
The CNN program further noted that the CFR Task Force also called for:
• “military and law enforcement cooperation between all three countries”;
• “an exchange of personnel that bring Canadians and Mexicans into the Department of Homeland Security”; and
• “temporary migrant worker programs expanded with full mobility of labor between the three countries in the next five years.”
That portion of the CNN broadcast concluded with the following exchange between Christine Romans and Lou Dobbs.
Romans: “The idea here is to make North America more like the European Union....”
Dobbs: “Americans must think that our political and academic elites have gone utterly mad at a time when three-and-a-half years, approaching four years after September 11, we still don’t have border security. And this group of elites is talking about not defending our borders, finally, but rather creating new ones. It’s astonishing.”
Romans: “The theory here is that we are stronger together, three countries in one, rather than alone.”
Dobbs: “Well, it’s a — it’s a mind-boggling concept....”
Not Just a “Concept”
Mind-boggling, yes. Unfortunately, this “utterly mad” proposal is not merely a “concept” in the woolly minds of political and academic elites; it has already become official U.S. policy!
On March 23, 2005, President Bush convened a special summit in Waco, Texas, with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. The three amigos met at Baylor University to call for a “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” before retiring to the president’s ranch in Crawford. The trio of leaders instructed their respective cabinet officials to form a dozen working groups and to report back within 90 days with concrete proposals to implement the new “partnership.”
On June 27, cabinet ministers of the three countries issued their joint report, entitled Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Signing the report for the United States were Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez. They and their counterparts from Mexico and Canada state in their introduction to the report:
We recognize that this Partnership is designed to be a dynamic, permanent process and that the attached work plans are but a first step. We know that after today, the real work begins. We will now need to transform the ideas into reality and the initiatives into prosperity and security.
The key phrase here, “dynamic, permanent process,” should set off alarm bells. Like NAFTA and CAFTA, to which it is intimately tied, this new “partnership” is intended to be an ongoing, constantly evolving process to bring about the economic, political, and social “integration” and “convergence” of the three nation states into a supranational regional system of governance that will then be merged into a larger regional system for the entire hemisphere — which includes the proposed FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). It is this dangerous, subversive process that should command every American’s immediate serious attention.
On July 27, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger F. Noriega told a House Subcommittee concerning the new partnership: “Thus far, we have identified over 300 initiatives spread over twenty trilateral [meaning U.S., Canada, and Mexico] working groups on which the three countries will collaborate.” What is being concocted in the hundreds of “initiatives” underway by these “working groups”? We don’t know, and that’s a major part of the problem. They have only revealed a very small part of their program thus far. The new “partnership” comes replete with pledges of “transparency.” That’s supposed to mean that all dealings will be above board and open and visible to the public. We hear a lot about transparency at the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and other international forums. But there’s an old saying that applies here: “The more he talked of honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” So it is with the international elites who craft the global and regional agreements: the more they talk of transparency, the more you know they are covering up.
The so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)* was launched by the newly elected Presidents George Bush and Vicente Fox in 2001 as the “Partnership for Prosperity.” (There’s no mention of Security in the original project.) President Fox was pushing for more U.S. financial aid, amnesty, and legalization for Mexicans already in the U.S. illegally, and easier access for more Mexican “guest workers” into the United States. Fox said he wanted “as many rights as possible, for as many Mexican immigrants as possible, as soon as possible.” In a June 21, 2001 interview, he declared, “Those Mexicans that are working in the United States should be considered legally working in the United States.” Mexico’s foreign minister, Jorge Castañeda, echoing Fox’s demands for legalization and more guest workers, told reporters, “It’s the whole enchilada or nothing.”
President Bush caused a significant national uproar (even a revolt among many of the GOP Bush faithful) by his willingness to buy almost the “whole enchilada.” In comments at a White House lawn press conference on September 6, 2001, marking the end of President Fox’s visit to the U.S., President Bush announced his commitment to a more expansive immigration policy that would “match a willing [U.S.] employer with a willing [Mexican] employee.” Which, of course, is a prescription for virtually unlimited migration of Mexican workers into the U.S. That was just five days before the 9/11 terror attacks.
The Gulliver Strategy
For several months prior to the September 2001 Fox-Bush meeting, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Foreign Minister Castañeda had been co-chairing a binational Migration Working Group aimed at changing U.S. border policies. At a November 22, 2002 press conference in Mexico City, Secretary Powell praised Castañeda and declared: “In Mexico, the Bush administration sees much more than a neighbor. We see a partner.... Our partnership rests on common values, on trust, on honesty.”
However, at the very same time that Secretary Powell was extolling the wonders of our new “partnership,” Senor Castañeda was presenting a vivid contrasting image. “I like very much the metaphor of Gulliver, of ensnarling the giant,” Castañeda told Mexican journalists in a November 2002 interview. “Tying it up, with nails, with thread, with 20,000 nets that bog it down: these nets being norms, principles, resolutions, agreements, and bilateral, regional and international covenants.”
That sounds like a rather adversarial partnership, not one based “on common values, on trust, on honesty.” Was Team Bush/Powell unaware of this less-than-neighborly attitude on the part of Team Fox/Castañeda? Were they out-foxed by Fox/Castañeda? Not at all; they were participating in a giant charade with Fox/Castañeda to out-fox the American people. It was a charade completely scripted by the brain trust at Pratt House, the New York headquarters of the Council on Foreign Relations. Secretary Powell is a longtime Insider at the CFR, as are many other members of the Bush administration (including Powell’s successor, Condoleezza Rice). Señor Castañeda, while not a CFR member, has been nevertheless a favorite guest at Pratt House for more than two decades. He has been the featured speaker at CFR programs, has written articles for the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs, and has received adulatory reviews for his books by CFR reviewers. And this, despite the fact that Castañeda, a longtime radical intellectual leader in Mexico’s Communist Party, has participated in the annual terrorist convention known as the Sao Paulo Forum, and continues to admire Communist revolutionary Che Guevarra!
Perhaps most important, as it pertains to this joint charade, is the fact that Castañeda has been a very close partner with Robert Pastor, the main author of the CFR’s blueprint for a North American Community. Pastor, a longtime Marxist associated with the radical Institute for Policy Studies (virtually a front for the Soviet KGB), even coauthored a book on U.S.-Mexico relations with Castañeda.
Castañeda, who stepped down as Fox’s foreign minister and took a professorship at New York University, is now running for president in Mexico’s 2006 elections. This past July 12, Castañeda appeared as an expert witness at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on border security. “No border security is possible without Mexican cooperation,” declared Castañeda. “There can be no future cooperation beyond what already exists without some form of immigration package.” He warned that border security is “very, very sensitive” to Mexicans. Any cooperation, he said, would have to be purchased with more U.S. liberalization of our immigration policies. To some, that sounds more like extortion than cooperation, but to the Bush administration and the bipartisan break-down-the-borders lobby in Congress, it passes for harmonious “partnering.”
The senators at the hearing did not challenge Castañeda or take him to task for his belligerent stance on this important security issue. Indeed, they seem to be primarily concerned with pushing through as much of the Fox/Castañeda program as their constituents will tolerate. They are considering two major competing bills now, S. 1033 by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), and S. 1438 by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). Both bills pretend to provide meaningful “reform” to enhance border security, but both of them are designed to propel North American “integration” forward by making our borders easier to cross, legalizing millions of illegal aliens already here, and opening the door for millions more “guest workers.” At the same time, both bills would dramatically increase federal surveillance and intrusion into the lives of American citizens.
Much of this appears to be already underway without congressional approval, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP joint statement mentioned previously, for instance, states: “We will test technology and make recommendations, over the next 12 months, to enhance the use of biometrics in screening travelers … with a view to developing compatible biometric border and immigration systems.” The statement’s section on “Safer, Faster and More Efficient Border Crossings,” like so much of the administration’s immigration program, is clearly more focused on faster border crossings, not stronger border security.
Premeditated Merger
The administration has not come right out and endorsed the merger of U.S. and Mexican immigration, military, and law enforcement personnel, as recommended by the CFR’s Task Force report, but it is headed in that direction, noting that “increased economic integration and security cooperation will further a unique and strong North American relationship.” In fact, it is becoming more and more apparent that the administration’s Security and Prosperity Partnership is actually an official adaptation of the CFR’s Building a North American Community.
The Task Force blueprint was the culmination of several years of specific efforts to launch a concrete program aimed at the physical merger of the U.S. with other nations in the hemisphere. As we’ve noted, one of the principal authors of that CFR proposal is Dr. Robert Pastor. More than a year before the Waco summit, the CFR publicly floated the idea with an important article by Pastor entitled, “North America’s Second Decade,” in the January/February 2004 issue of its flagship journal, Foreign Affairs.
“NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America,” Pastor explained to the elite in-the-know readership of the journal. The CFR spinmeisters repeatedly insisted for over a decade that NAFTA was merely a “trade agreement.” Now they are being a bit more candid: NAFTA was merely the first draft of an ongoing “dynamic, permanent process.” The border demolition is part of the next draft, which is intended to deal with political and security issues.
“Overcoming the tension between security and trade,” said Pastor, “requires a bolder approach to continental integration.” So he boldly proposed, among other things, “a North American customs union with a common external tariff (CET), which would significantly reduce border inspections.” (Emphasis added.) In addition, he says, the Department of Homeland Security “should expand its mission” to cover the entire continent “by incorporating Mexican and Canadian perspectives and personnel into its design and operation.”
Pastor opines that, properly managed, the post-9/11 “security fears would serve as a catalyst for deeper integration.” “That would require new structures,” he says, “to assure mutual security.” It would also require, he notes, “a redefinition of security that puts the United States, Mexico, and Canada inside a continental perimeter.”
He means a very radical redefinition of security, to say the least. The claim by Pastor and the CFR claque that stretching our already dangerously porous borders to include two additional huge countries — both of which are already fraught with their own serious security problems — is so far beyond ludicrous that it can only be explained as openly fraudulent. That the so-called “wise men” of the CFR could actually believe their own propaganda in this case is preposterous.
After all, as CNN’s Lou Dobbs reported on the same June 9 broadcast, Mexico is descending ever more rapidly into a maelstrom of chaos, corruption, and open warfare, as rival drug cartels, police, the military, and government officials (many of whom are in the pockets of the narco-terrorists) battle it out.
Mexico is notorious for official corruption — police, military, and elected and appointed officials — from top to bottom. In 1997, it may be recalled, Mexico’s top official in its War on Drugs, Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, was arrested for working with one of the top drug cartels! However, evidence that came out during the course of his trial pointed to many other top military, police, and federal officials as accomplices as well.
More than 2,000 Mexican police officers are under investigation for drug-related corruption, and more than 700 officers have been charged with serious offenses ranging from kidnapping and murder to taking bribes from the drug cartels. Mexico, with its close diplomatic ties to Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, has also long been a friendly hangout for many revolutionary terrorist organizations.
One needn’t be a Latin American expert (like Dr. Pastor) to realize the absurdity of trying to make America more secure by entrusting our homeland security in part to Mexican law enforcement, and by incorporating all of Mexico’s horrendous problems inside an unconstitutional and amorphous “common perimeter.”
Canada also presents us with serious security considerations. Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) director Ward Elcock has testified to Parliament that more than 50 terrorist organizations — representing Middle East, Tamil, Sikh, Latin American, and Irish terrorists — are active in Canada. CSIS spokesman Dan Lambert has stated that “with the exception of the United States, there are more terrorist groups active in Canada than perhaps any other country in the world.”
All considered, the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership threatens our very survival as a free nation. Congress must reject it — totally. But that will only happen if Congress hears an undeniable roar of outrage from us, the American people.
* Details about the Security and Prosperity Partnership can be found at www.spp.gov.
NORTH AMERICA — SIDEBAR
Council for Revolution
by William F. Jasper
The program now being implemented by the Bush administration under the false label of “Security and Prosperity Partnership” is but the most recent and transparent demonstration of the subversion of our constitutional protections by powerful elites — internationalists, globalists, one-worlders — who have, over the past few decades, taken control of both the Republican and Democratic Parties, and have become the real power controlling our federal government.
Like dozens of other policies, programs, treaties, and legislation that have been so detrimental to U.S. interests, this new border demolition project was conceived, hatched and nurtured by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a private “think tank,” and then passed on to the Bush administration for official implementation. The CFR has been described by constitutional scholar and former top FBI official Dan Smoot as the most important public front of the “invisible government” that runs America. Liberal commentator Richard Rovere described it as “a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation.” According to former CFR member Admiral Chester Ward, the top leadership of the CFR constitute a subversive cabal seeking the “submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.”
Explaining the tremendous influence of the CFR, Admiral Ward noted: “Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.”
That CFR operational scheme outlined by Ward is plainly visible in the case of the group’s Security and Prosperity Program. It is no mere coincidence that the CFR’s plan mentioned in the CNN piece has come out simultaneously with the official Bush plan, or that the two plans are nearly identical.
The radical background of the CFR report’s primary author, Robert Pastor, is noteworthy:
• As a Latin American expert on Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council, Pastor was a prime instrument in toppling American ally President Anastasio Somoza and bringing the Communist Sandinistas to power in Nicaragua. President Daniel Oduber of Costa Rica recounted that Pastor had asked him, while making an official state tour with First Lady Rosalyn Carter: “When are we going to get that son of a b**** [Somoza] up to the north out of the presidency?”
• At the time he was picked by Carter, Pastor was finishing up his stint as director of the Rockefeller and Ford foundation-financed CFR task force known as the Linowitz Commission, which supported revolutionary changes in Latin America, including abandonment of our strategic canal in Panama.
• At the same time, Pastor also was a member of the Working Group on Latin America of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), the notorious Marxist center that has been one of the most important operational arms of the Soviet KGB and Cuban DGI in this country. He helped author The Southern Connection, a notorious IPS report calling on the United States to abandon its anti-Communist allies and to support “ideological pluralism,” as represented by the Communist Sandinistas and other revolutionary terrorist groups.
The entire careers of Dr. Pastor and his CFR comrades indicate that they are consciously working (like Pastor’s friend and coauthor, Jorge Castañeda) to bind and enslave the United States like a helpless Gulliver.
The key concepts of transnational progressivism could be described as follows:
(1) The ascribed group over the individual citizen. The key political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born. This emphasis on race, ethnicity, and gender leads to group consciousness and a deemphasis of the individual's capacity for choice and for transcendence of ascriptive categories, joining with others beyond the confines of social class, tribe, and gender to create a cohesive nation. Immigration & The American Future
(2) A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. Influenced (however indirectly) by the Hegelian Marxist thinking associated with the Italian writer Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and the Central European theorists known as the Frankfurt School, global progressives posit that throughout human history there are essentially two types of groups: the oppressor and the oppressed, the privileged and the marginalized. In the United States, oppressor groups would variously include white males, heterosexuals, and Anglos, whereas victim groups would include blacks, gays, Latinos (including obviously many immigrants), and women. The Gramsci Factor by Chuck Morse - Sierra Times.com & Welcome to the Anti-Communitarian League homepage! & Why There is a Culture War- Policy Review, No. 104 & Gramsci: A Method to the Madness & Gramsci And The US Body Politic & Gramsci's Grand Plan & Frankfurt School & Rigoberta Menchú: Liar & Treason &
Multicultural ideologists have incorporated this essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy into their theoretical framework. As political philosopher James Ceaser puts it, multiculturalism is not "multi" or concerned with many groups, but "binary," concerned with two groups, the hegemon (bad) and "the Other" (good) or the oppressor and the oppressed. Thus, in global progressive ideology, "equity" and "social justice" mean strengthening the position of the victim groups and weakening the position of oppressors-hence preferences for certain groups are justified. Accordingly, equality under law is replaced by legal preferences for traditionally victimized groups. In 1999, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission extended antidiscrimination protection under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to illegal immigrants. City Journal Winter 2004 | The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave by Heather ... & City Journal Summer 2004 | The Immigrant Gang Plague by Heather ... & Race and Revolution & Rewarding Lawlessness & Racism is Not the Problem: Why Martin Luther King Got It Half ... & Issues & Views: Increasing "Hate Crime" Punishment Violates ... & Harvard University Fellow Advocates "Abolishing the White Race" & Issues & Views: Using Racism as a Device
(3) Group proportionalism as the goal of "fairness." Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population or, at least, of the local work force. Thus, if women make up 52 percent and Latinos make up 10 percent of the population, then 52 percent of all corporate executives, physicians, and insurance salesmen should be women and 10 percent should be Latinos. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation" or imbalance that must be rectified by government and civil society. Thomas Sowell recently wrote-as he has for several decades-that many Western intellectuals perpetually promote some version of "cosmic justice" or form of equality of result.8 The "group proportionalism" paradigm is pervasive in Western society: even the U.S. Park Service is concerned because 85 percent of all visitors to the nation's parks are white, although whites make up only 74 percent of the population. Therefore, the Park Service announced in 1998 that it was working on this "problem."9 An FTAA Sneak Preview & FTAA: Forced To Accept Aliens & What is Sensitivity Training & Psychic Iron Cage
(4) The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives in the United States (and elsewhere) insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities (including immigrants, legal and illegal) at all levels in major institutions of society (corporations, places of worship, universities, armed forces) if these institutions continue to reflect a "white Anglo male culture and world view." Ethnic and linguistic minorities have different ways of viewing the world, they say, and these minorities' values and cultures must be respected and represented within these institutions. At a 1998 U.S. Department of Education conference promoting bilingual education, SUNY professor Joel Spring declared, "We must use multiculturalism and multilingualism to change the dominant culture of the United States." He noted, for example, that unlike Anglo culture, Latino culture is "warm" and would not promote harsh disciplinary measures in the schools.10 Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular ... & Multiculturalism and Marxism
(5) The Demographic Imperative. The demographic imperative tells us that major demographic changes are occurring in the United States as millions of new immigrants from non- Western cultures and their children enter American life in record numbers. At the same time, the global interdependence of the world's peoples and the transnational connections among them will increase. All of these changes render the traditional paradigm of American nationhood obsolete. That traditional paradigm based on individual rights, majority rule, national sovereignty, citizenship, and the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is too narrow and must be changed into a system that promotes "diversity," defined, in the end, as group proportionalism. Western Civilization Against Itself & New Mexico Professor Advocates Secession for Southwest
(6) The redefinition of democracy and "democratic ideals." Since Fukayama's treatise, transnational progressives have been altering the definition of "democracy," from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. For example, Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castañeda wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in July 1995 that it is "undemocratic" for California to exclude noncitizens, specifically illegal aliens, from voting. Former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) general counsel Alexander Aleinikoff, declaring that "[we] live in a post-assimilationist age," asserted that majority preferences simply "reflect the norms and cultures of dominant groups" (as opposed to the norms and cultures of "feminists and people of color").11 James Banks, one of American education's leading textbook writers, noted in 1994 that "to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power."12 In effect, Banks said, existing American liberal democracy is not quite authentic; real democracy is yet to be created. It will come when the different "peoples" or groups that live within America "share power" as groups.
(7) Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols. Transnational progressives have focused on traditional narratives and national symbols of Western democratic nation-states, questioning union and nationhood itself. In October 2000, the British governmentsponsored Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain issued a report that denounced the concept of "Britishness" as having "systemic . . . racist connotations." The Commission, chaired by Labour life peer Lord Parekh, declared that instead of defining itself as a nation, the UK should be considered a "community of communities." One member of the Commission explained that the members found the concepts of "Britain" and "nation" troubling. The purpose of the Commission's report, according to the chairman Professor Parekh, was to "shape and restructure the consciousness of our citizens." The report declared that Britain should be formally "recognized as a multi-cultural society" whose history needed to be "revised, rethought, or jettisoned."13
The Claremont Institute: The Cost of Ignorance & Historical illiteracy abounds & National Constitution Center: New Survey Shows Wide Gap Between ... & Senate Panel Hears that Ignorance of U.S. History Poses Major Security Threat &Only half would vote for Constitution & Albert Burns -- Historical Illiteracy & Antonio Gramsci & the deliberate dumbing down of america & Frivolous Courses Pervasive at Top American Colleges & Terrorists Find Allies on Campus & Marine Shouted Down at UNLV & American Flag Banned on Campuses Across the Nation & ACTA: American Council of Trustees and Alumni & The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing by Lee Harris - Policy ... & FrontPage magazine.com :: Battling Bias in Academia by Joseph ... & Book Review: Why the Left Hates America & Who Will Defend American Values? & How Textbooks Distort American History
In the United States in the mid-1990s, the proposed "National History Standards," reflecting the marked influence of multiculturalism among historians in the nation's universities, recommended altering the traditional narrative of the United States. Instead of emphasizing the story of European settlers, American civilization would be redefined as a "convergence" of three civilizations-Amerindian, West African, and European-the bases of a hybrid American multiculture. Even though the National History Standards were ultimately rejected, this core multicultural concept that that United States is not primarily the creation of Western civilization, but the result of a "Great Convergence" of "three worlds" has become the dominant paradigm in American public schools. The Multicultural Theocracy: An Interview With Paul Gottfried &The Relentless Assault of 'Multiculturalism'
In Israel, adversary intellectuals have attacked the Zionist narrative. A "post-Zionist" intelligentsia has proposed that Israel consider itself multicultural and deconstruct its identity as a Jewish state. Tom Bethell has pointed out that in the mid-1990s the official appointed to revise Israel's history curriculum used media interviews to compare the Israeli armed forces to the SS and Orthodox Jewish youth to the Hitler Youth. A new code of ethics for the Israel Defense Forces eliminated all references to the "land of Israel," the "Jewish state," and the "Jewish people," and, instead, referred only to "democracy." Even Israeli foreign minister Simon Peres sounded the post-Zionist trumpet in his 1993 book, The New Middle East, where he wrote that "we do not need to reinforce sovereignty, but rather to strengthen the position of humankind." He called for an "ultranational identity," saying that "particularist nationalism is fading and the idea of a 'citizen of the world' is taking hold. . . . Our ultimate goal is the creation of a regional community of nations, with a common market and elected centralized bodies," a type of Middle Eastern EU.14
(8) Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. "Can advocates of postnational citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?" asks Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak.15 An increasing number of international law professors throughout the West are arguing that citizenship should be denationalized. Invoking concepts such as inclusion, social justice, democratic engagement, and human rights, they argue for transnational citizenship, postnational citizenship, or sometimes global citizenship embedded in international human rights accords and "evolving" forms of transnational arrangements. These theorists insist that national citizenship should not be "privileged" at the expense of postnational, multiple, and pluralized forms of citizenship identities. For example, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, under the leadership of its president, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, has published a series of books in the past few years "challenging traditional understandings of belonging and membership" in nation-states and "rethinking the meaning of citizenship."16 Although couched in the ostensibly neutral language of social science, these essays from scholars from Germany, Britain, Canada, and France, as well as the United States, argue for new, transnational forms of citizenship as a normative good. "America's Border: Who Left the Door Open?"
(9) The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. The theory of transnationalism promises to be for the first decade of the twenty-first century what multiculturalism was for the last decade of the twentieth century. In a certain sense, transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology-it is multiculturalism with a global face. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of transnational "global governance" because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future. Academic and public policy conferences today are filled with discussions of "transnational organizations," "transnational actors," "transnational migrants," "transnational jurisprudence," and "transnational citizenship," just as in the 1990s they were replete with references to multiculturalism in education, citizenship, literature, and law. Can Globalism Amend Our Constitution? -- Phyllis Schlafly Aug. 13 ... & Bipartisan Border Betrayal & The & Immigration Conspiracy & Socialist Scholars Call for Dismantling of US Constitution in NYC & Lawyer Indicted for Aiding Terrorists Becomes Stanford Law 'Mentor ...
Many of the same scholars who touted multiculturalism now herald the coming transnational age. Thus, at its August 1999 annual conference, "Transitions in World Societies," the same American Sociological Association (ASA) that promoted multiculturalism from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s featured transnationalism. Indeed, the ASA's then-president, Professor Alejandro Portes of Princeton University, argued that transnationalism is the wave of the future. He insisted that transnationalism, combined with large-scale immigration, would redefine the meaning of American citizenship. University of Chicago anthropologist Arjun Appadurai has suggested that the United States is in transition from being a "land of immigrants" to "one node in a postnational network of diasporas."17 City Journal Spring 2002 | Do We Want Mexifornia? by Victor Davis ... & Abolishing Our Borders
It is clear that arguments over globalization will dominate much of early twenty-first century public debate. The promotion of transnationalism as both an empirical and normative concept is an attempt to shape this crucial intellectual struggle over globalization. The adherents of transnationalism create a dichotomy. They imply that one is either in step with globalization, and thus with transnationalism and forward-looking thinking, or one is a backward antiglobalist.
Liberal democrats (who are internationalists and support free trade and market economics) must reply that this is a false dichotomy-that the critical argument is not between globalists and antiglobalists, but instead over the form Western global engagement should take in the coming decades: will it be transnationalist or internationalist?
For "Thunder on the Border," click the picture:
You said it brother.
You said it brother.
Rent your own auditorium.
You know WTF this is. You can go to countless street courners, shopping malls, etc. and see dozens of illegals standing around in the mornings in Texas, for just one state. The police, the INS, don't even bother to deal with it. Homeland Security is a bad joke, it just means that illegals can't come in on airplanes.
Pay no mind to the inconsequentional non-conservatives.
"Aw Jeez,.."
Not only that but, why are these bozos always so long-winded? They must get paid by the word.
You newbies are all the same, always trying to impress someone with your copy and pasting skills.Jibberish!!!
Inconsequential, eh?
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
If you find it too much, all you have to read is the first three or four paragraphs of the article. Pretty much everything else is just commentary, and it's not like these guys are the first to take notice of this task force report. Phyllis Schlafly has been talking about it for quite some time now.
NO kidding...Lou Dobbs again. PLeaaaze.
You know who are inconsequential? You fringe lunatics are inconsequential. You lose every political debate.
Tell me how that makes you effective and the rest of us inconsequential.
Or don't, because it would be an exercise in silliness.
I'm with you. I've seen too much of the illegals overcrowding the public county hospitals for free maternity care as they have their anchor babies on American taxpayers money. I've seen them in grocery stores using all kinds of charity notes, and then hauling out a big roll of dollars to pay for the difference. We are big-time suckers.
I think maybe you are posting this to airheads that can’t make it through the whole article let alone understand how the Government we do not vote for manipulates events to put in age-old projects. Able Danger and the hushing of the soldiers should show anyone that a cover-up of previous knowledge is at hand. Also if foreign terrorists had the foothold within our borders the un-elected government would have us believe then we would have been attacked while devastated by hurricanes. The Patriot Act is for control of Americans and is older than most of the readers of this site. The people we do vote for seem to have little concern for the logical views that are not conspiracy theories. Every truth has a little lie in it and in every lie there is a little truth, so even conspiracy theories must have some base reality. I have watched over 60 years as this country has been steadily dismantled by abbreviations. EPA, CIA, FBI, IRS, NSA, DFACS and on and on and on the un-elected government grows beyond sight. What we really need is to ban the usage of the alphabet use by law fakers. Fakers is not a type-o.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.